On 2015-09-05 11:22, Guillem Barba Domingo wrote: > 2015-08-31 18:59 GMT+02:00 Cédric Krier <[email protected]>: > > > On 2015-08-31 18:44, Albert Cervera i Areny wrote: > > > 2015-08-31 14:46 GMT+02:00 Cédric Krier <[email protected]>: > > > > On 2015-08-31 14:43, Albert Cervera i Areny wrote: > > > >> 2015-08-31 12:17 GMT+02:00 Cédric Krier <[email protected]>: > > > >> > Hi, > > > >> > > > > >> > I would like to have feedback about this change: > > > >> > https://bugs.tryton.org/issue4932 > > > >> > It is technically speaking a simple change but it has big impact on > > the > > > >> > user experience. > > > >> > > > >> IMHO the use case it's not frequent enough to put the shipment party > > > >> on the header of the sale. I'd rather put it on the "Other info" tab > > > >> by default. > > > > > > > > But this will provide a very poor experience for the case where it is > > > > needed. > > > > > > Indeed. That could be easily solved with a module which moved the > > > field. Or simply hide the field in the core implementation. That said, > > > I don't fully understand what is the problem with changing the domain > > > in a inheriting module. I know we have made similar changes to this > > > one with our modules... > > > > > > If it's not robust enough maybe what we need is a proper way to manage > > > theses cases. > > > > For me, the main issue is that delivery to another party is not so rare > > and by default user use wrongly the current design by adding the address > > to the current party. > > But also extending a domain is doable but it is very fragile code, so I > > prefer to keep such code only for custom module where all the > > dependencies are known. > > So both points, make me think that the current design is wrong and it > > should be changed. > > > > Yes, we could not display the new Shipment Party field but this will > > still lead to my first point. > > > > I also think that the behaviour (with all the on_change) keeps the form > > quiet simple to fill. But other options exist like filling the Shipment > > Party with the Party automatically or put no domain on the Shipment > > Address etc. > > > I think leave the "Shipment Address" without domain and doesn't add the > Shipment Party is a better option. > As well as it's simpler, I think it match better with the meaning; what you > want is send the goods to an address that doesn't belongs to the sale's > party, the "shipment address party" is more an information of where you > have to send than the main information.
Technically you are right but for the UX it will be a nightmare to have to search through all the addresses. And usually when you talk about such shipment address, you will start by saying "ship to Party X at its address Y". Moreover, searching an address is quite complicate because you can only search on the rec_name of party instead of any field of it. Also I really think this design will be customized with the party_relation to add a domain on the shipment_party based on its relation with the party. > Moreover when you can search addresses by party but if the "shipment party" > to send has more than one address it will require to set two fields. Not really as it does mimic exactly the same behaviour as the actual shipment_address which is to use the address flags to put a default one. Also most cases parties will have only one address. -- Cédric Krier - B2CK SPRL Email/Jabber: [email protected] Tel: +32 472 54 46 59 Website: http://www.b2ck.com/
